This is a suit against Mr. Pear and others to recover a
fine of $5 for refusal to submit a smallpox vaccination pursuant to a health
statute.
The statute in question, R.L.c.s 137 orders all residents of the city who have
not been vaccinated or revaccinated to do so due to the prevalence of smallpox. The
board of health informed Mr. Pear that he would have to be vaccinated or pay
a $5 penalty. Mr. Pear refused and was prosecuted. Mr.
Pear claimed that the statute was unconstitutional under both the United
States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution. The court found
that the statute was not unconstitutional. The court recognized that
the Constitution of Massachusetts authorizes such police powers in order
to protect public health and safety.
Mr. Pear also claimed that the court erred in not allowing him to admit testimony
of medical experts who opposed vaccination. This case was then appealed
to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the Mass. Court in the classic
public health case, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11
(1905)

Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination
was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Massachusetts
Supreme Court found the statute consistent with the Massachusetts state constitution,
and Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent
right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems
to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering
the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit
to vaccination:

This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental
principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints
and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity
of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question
ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as
natural persons are concerned."'

(at 26)

With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of
civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for
the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson sought to enjoy the benefit
of his neighbors being vaccinated for smallpox without personally accepting
the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which
it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.

The Court next considered Jacobson's right to contest the
scientific basis of the Massachusetts vaccination requirement. Accepting that
some reasonable people still questioned the efficacy of vaccination, the Court
nonetheless found that it was within the legislature's prerogative to adopt
one from many conflicting views on a scientific issue.